Consortium established for SMR-160 deployment in Ukraine, WNN 12 June 2019
The consortium document was signed by Holtec CEO Kris Singh, Energoatom President Yury Nedashkovsky and SSTC President Igor Shevchenko. The signing ceremony – held at Holtec’s headquarters in Camden, New Jersey – was attended by senior Holtec officials and delegations from Mitsubishi Electric, the US Department of Energy and Energoatom.
The consortium is a US company registered in Delaware with each of the three parties owning allotted shares. Its technology operation centre will be based in Kiev, Ukraine…….
The MoU includes the licensing and construction of SMR-160 reactors in Ukraine, as well as the partial localisation of SMR-160 components. The Ukrainian manufacturing hub is to mirror the capabilities of Holtec’s Advanced Manufacturing Plant in Camden, and will be one of four manufacturing plants Holtec plans to build at distributed sites around the world by the mid-2020s.
Holtec’s 160 MWe factory-built SMR uses low-enriched uranium fuel. The reactor’s core and all nuclear steam supply system components would be located underground, and the design incorporates a wealth of features including a passive cooling system that would be able to operate indefinitely after shutdown….
The SMR-160 is planned for operation by 2026.
The SMR-160 is currently undergoing the first phase of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s three-phase pre-licensing vendor design review process. State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine, the nuclear regulatory authority in Ukraine, is expected to coordinate its regulatory assessment of SMR-160 under a collaborative arrangement with its Canadian counterpart. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Consortium-established-for-SMR-160-deployment-in-U
Edwin lyman on the safety of these reactors “Holtec SMR-160. The Holtec SMR-160 will generate 160 MWe. Like the NuScale, it is designed for passive cooling of the primary system during both normal and accident conditions. However, the modules would be much taller than the NuScale modules and would not be submerged in a pool of water. Each reactor vessel would be located deep underground, with a large inventory of water above it that could be used to provide a passive heat sink for cooling the core in the event of an accident. Each containment building would be surrounded by an additional enclosure for safety, and the space between the two structures would be filled with water. Unlike the other iPWRs, the SMR-160 steam generators are not internal to the reactor vessel. The reactor system is tall and narrow to maximize the rate of natural convective flow, which is low in other passive designs. Holtec has not made precise dimensions available, but the reactor vessel is approximately 100 feet tall, and the aboveground portion of the containment is about 100 feet tall and 50 feet in diameter (Singh 2013)
For these and other SMRs, it is important to note that only limited information is available about the design, as well as about safety and security. A vast amount of information is considered commercially sensitive or security-related and is being withheld from the public. ….
in the event of a serious accident, emergency crews could have greater difficulty accessing underground reactors.
Underground siting of reactors is not a new idea. Decades ago, both Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov proposed siting reactors deep underground to enhance safety. However, it was recognized early on that building reactors underground increases cost. Numerous studies conducted in the 1970s found construction cost penalties for underground reactor construction ranging from 11 to 60 percent (Myers and Elkins). As a result, the industry lost interest in underground siting. This issue will require considerable analysis to evaluate trade-offs…. ” https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/edwin-lyman-on-small-modular-reactors/ erious accident, emergency crews could have greater difficulty accessing underground reactors.
June 13, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Ukraine, USA |
Leave a comment
|
Caution urged over modular nuclear reactors, New Civil Engineer, 9 JUNE, 2019 BY CONNOR IBBETSON Energy heavyweights have urged caution over the idea of rolling out small modular reactor (SMR) technology to replace cancelled and decommissioned nuclear power projects.
The warnings came during a discussion on the potential ‘clean energy gap’ left by cancelled nuclear projects like Wylfa and older plants being decommissioned early.
One potential solution to the gap would be to accelerate the progress of SMR development, which are marketed by their supporters as a more affordable nuclear power option, and safer than larger projects, such as Hinkley Point C.
However National Infrastructure Commission chief economist James Richardson warned that the industry had failed to deliver on technological promises in the past.
“You have to have a degree of caution with new nuclear technology,” he said. “We have been promised things time and time again and typically the industry tends to be more expensive and take longer than planned. I would be cautious against SMRs, they are a question for the 2030s.”
“SMRs are not going to help in the next decade because they are just not available. By the time they turn up we can see if they are still cost effective or if renewable’s have gone beyond.”
UK Energy Research Centre director Jim Watson agreed, and added we need to decarbonised power before SMR’s can be deployed.
“I would also be cautious; we need to remember that 2030 is when we need to have decarbonised our power system by and I think there is a limit to which nuclear can help deliver that. We don’t know what the real cost of these SMRs are. History does make us cautious.” ……. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/caution-urged-over-modular-nuclear-reactors/10042995.article
|
|
June 10, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
2 WORLD, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors |
Leave a comment
EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY: RADIATION WILL MAKE MARS MISSION DEADLY, https://futurism.com/the-byte/space-radiation-mars-mission-deadly JUNE 5TH 19__DAN ROBITZSKI__
Slow Down
Elon Musk once said he’d likely move to Mars in his lifetime. But before we settle the Red Planet, the European Space Agency (ESA) urges extreme caution.
That’s because it lacks the natural barriers that protect us Earthlings from cosmic radiation, which would put astronauts at risk of deadly health conditions. But they’re working on it — the ESA says it has partneredwith particle accelerators to recreate cosmic radiation in a controlled setting and build shields that can protect future explorers.
Harsh Conditions
Astronauts on the International Space Station are subjected to 200 times the cosmic radiation as people are on Earth,
according to ExtremeTech. On Mars, that number jumps up to 700 — scientists have even suggested that Martian settlers may
rapidly mutateto adapt.
“The real problem is the large uncertainty surrounding the risks,” said ESA physicist Marco Durante in the press release. “We don’t understand space radiation very well and the long-lasting effects are unknown.”
Shields Up
The ESA found that a six-month stay on Mars would expose astronauts to “60% of the total radiation dose limit recommended for their entire career.”
Ongoing experiments suggest that lithium is a promising material for future spacecraft and radiation shields, according to the press release, but they haven’t reached the point at which
space travel becomes safe.
As it stands today, we can’t go to Mars due to radiation,” said Durante. “It would be impossible to meet acceptable dose limits.”
READ MORE: Radiation Makes Human Missions to Mars Too Dangerous: ESA [ExtremeTech]
June 8, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
2 WORLD, space travel |
3 Comments
The radiation showstopper for Mars exploration https://phys.org/news/2019-06-showstopper-mars-exploration.html, by European Space Agency 3 June 19, An astronaut on a mission to Mars could receive radiation doses up to 700 times higher than on our planet—a major showstopper for the safe exploration of our solar system. A team of European experts is working with ESA to protect the health of future crews on their way to the Moon and beyond.
Earth’s magnetic fieldand atmosphere protect us from the constant bombardment of galactic cosmic rays—energetic particles that travel at close to the speed of light and penetrate the human body.
Cosmic radiation could increase cancer risks during long duration missions. Damage to the human body extends to the brain, heart and the central nervous system and sets the stage for degenerative diseases. A higher percentage of early-onset cataracts have been reported in astronauts.
“One day in space is equivalent to the radiation received on Earth for a whole year,” explains physicist Marco Durante, who studies cosmic radiation on Earth.
Marco points out that most of the changes in the astronauts’ gene expression are believed to be a result of radiation exposure, according to the recent NASA’s Twins study. This research showed DNA damage in astronaut Scott Kelly compared to his identical twin and fellow astronaut Mark Kelly, who remained on Earth.
A second source of space radiation comes from unpredictable solar particle events that deliver high doses of radiation in a short period of time, leading to “radiation sickness” unless protective measures are taken.
Europe’s radiation fight club
“The real problem is the large uncertainty surrounding the risks. We don’t understand space radiation very well and the long-lasting effects are unknown,” explains Marco who is also part of an ESA team formed to investigate radiation.
Since 2015, this forum of experts provides advice from areas such as space science, biology, epidemiology, medicine and physics to improve protection from space radiation.
“Space radiation research is an area that crosses the entire life and physical sciences area with important applications on Earth. Research in this area will remain of high priority for ESA,” says Jennifer Ngo-Anh, ESA’s team leader human research, biology and physical sciences.
While astronauts are not considered radiation workers in all countries, they are exposed to 200 times more radiation on the International Space Station than an airline pilot or a radiology nurse.
Radiation is in the Space Station’s spotlight every day. A console at NASA’s mission control in Houston, Texas, is constantly showing space weather information.
f a burst of space radiation is detected, teams on Earth can abort a spacewalk, instruct astronauts to move to more shielded areas and even change the altitude of the station to minimize impact.
One of the main recommendations of the topical team is to develop a risk model with the radiation dose limits for crews traveling beyond the International Space Station.
ESA’s flight surgeon and radiologist Ulrich Straube believes that the model should “provide information on the risks that could cause cancer and non-cancer health issues for astronauts going to the Moon and Mars in agreement with all space agencies.”
Recent data from ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter showed that on a six-month journey to the Red Planet an astronaut could be exposed to at least 60% of the total radiation dose limit recommended for their entire career.
“As it stands today, we can’t go to Mars due to radiation. It would be impossible to meet acceptable dose limits,” reminds Marco.
Measure to protect
ESA has teamed up with five particle accelerators in Europe that can recreate cosmic radiation by “shooting” atomic particles to speeds approaching the speed of light. Researchers have been bombarding biological cells and materials with radiation to understand how to best protect astronauts.
“The research is paying off. Lithium is standing out as a promising material for shielding in planetary missions,” says Marco.
ESA has been measuring the radiation dose on the International Space Station for seven years with passive radiation detectors in the DOSIS 3-D experiment. ESA astronauts Andreas Mogensen and Thomas Pesquet wore a new mobile dosimeter during their missions that gave them a real-time snapshot of their exposure.
The same European team behind this research will provide radiation detectors to monitor the skin and organ doses of the two phantoms traveling to the Moon onboard NASA’s Orion spacecraft.
June 4, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
2 WORLD, space travel |
2 Comments
Fusion- some new issues http://newrenewextra.blogspot.com/2019/06/fusion-some-new-issues.html–3 June 19, Renewables are doing very well these days, with costs falling, but some say that we will also need other non-fossil options to respond to climate change. Nuclear fission is one, but it is having problems- it’s proving to be expensive and, some say, risky. Some are hopeful that new technology will improve its lot, but for others the big hope is that, at some point in the future, nuclear fusion will be available and will avoid the problems that fission faces.
It is usually claimed that fusion will be cleaner and safer, with no fission products to store and no risks of core melt downs. Moreover, since it uses hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium), which are relatively easily obtained (deuterium from sea water, tritium from lithium), fusion can provide energy more or less indefinitely, into the far future. It may not be a renewed resource, but it is large. An exciting high tech solution – that could, some say, be available soon!
However, the reality is a bit more complex, with there being issues at each stage of the fuel-to-energy process, and a lot more work to do. In terms of fuel, it takes energy to extract deuterium from water, and lithium reserves, although relatively large, may be increasingly depleted given the growing demand for Lithium Ion batteries for electric vehicles. In terms of fusion plant operation, there will be radiation exposure risks and the potential for accidental release of active materials – tritium has a 12.3 year half-life, and tritiated water can be a major health hazard. Depending on the fusion system used, there will also still be some active wastes to deal with- the components and containment structures will be activated by the high radiation fluxes and have to be regularly stripped out. They will be less long-lived than fission wastes, but they are still an issue.
More generally there is the issue of plant operation in power terms. It is early days yet, since we only have experience with small prototype test projects, like JET at Culham, and no detailed plans for full scale power stations. However, it seems likely that the plants will not be run continually, but in pulses. When eventually finished, and fully commissioned (maybe by 2030?) the 500 MW rated €15bn ITER project being built in the south of France is expected to generate power in up to 10 minute bursts, and for at the most 1 hour. The proposed larger DEMO follow up (in the 2040s?) willevidently also only run in bursts, but of 2-4 hours.
One implication of this intermittent generation is that commercial scale fusion reactors, when and if they emerge, may be used not to generate base-load continuous power, but for producing hydrogen in batch-production mode. That can be used as a storable fuel for heating or be converted into various synfuels for vehicle use. It may thus be that fusion will focus on these more lucrative markets rather than trying to compete in the very tight electricity market.
There are other approaches to fusion which might offer other power options. The USA’s laser-fired ‘ignition’ system has its fans. Certainly some see the ‘inertial confinement’ approach, with tiny fuel pellets being compressed, using multiple focused laser beams, to reach fusion conditions, as winning over Tokomak magnetic constriction plasma systems like ITER. We shall see, with Google even entering the field, offering advanced electronics. Germany, Japan, South Korea and China are also in the game, as is Russia, which is where the original Tokomak design came from. TheUK national hopes rest with the MAST spherical Tokomak at Culham and derivatives like the ST40.
Few of these technologies seem likely to be running at full scale before the 2030s or even 2040’s, but some do claim that they can be ready earlier. In 2014, Lockheed surprised everyone by claiming that for their ‘compact fusion’ programe they were aiming for a ‘prototype in 5 years, defence products in 10, clean power for the world in 20 years’. We may see, but for the moment it all seems rather speculative and long term. Some of the rivals may get there faster, but, even assuming everything goes to plan, a commercial-scale ITER follow up is not now seen as likely to be available to feed power to the grid until after 2050!
Breakthroughs in smaller-scale laser fusion or some such are possible, and some reports seem to suggest imminent success (or at least a sustained positive output by 2024), but for the moment, there are the practicalities of the large scale Tokomak approach being developed by ITER to face. Some of the issues are quite worrying. The high radiation fluxes will present some operational safety issues. Indeed, a recent paper in Nature has warned that not enough attention had so far been given to safety.
It compared the current 500MW rated ITER project with the hypothetical DEMO commercial-scale follow-up project, maybe running in the 2040/50s. In ITER, it said, the risk of radiation exposure comes from fusion neutrons emitted from the plasma, γ-radiation emitted by neutron-activated components, X-rays emitted by some heating and current drive generators, and the β-radiation emitted from tritium. DEMO, would have a similar range of radiation – the main difference being the size of the inventories of typical radioactive products. It would presumably be the workforce who were most at risk, but there could also be public exposure issues, especially if there was a major loss of containment
The Nature article says that it’s been calculated that the radioactivity due to materials activation in a future fusion reactor may be three orders of magnitude more than that in a typical fission reactor with the same electrical power output, while the total radioactivity is comparable. It adds ‘from this point of view, fusion reactors may be potentially unsafe if low-activation materials are not deployed. Note that this finding may also be applicable to the more recent fusion reactor concepts with even low-activation materials adopted. This means that radiation exposure control for fusion reactor design and operation is of critical concern […] Thus, several radiation protection provisions, such as confinement barriers, radiation shielding and access control, must be applied in order to meet the maximum public dose limits required by the regulatory body and at the same time to keep individual occupational doses for workers as low as reasonably achievable.’
It also says ‘a fusion demonstration reactor is generally expected to have an order of magnitude more decay heat power than ITER, comparable to that of a fission reactor with the same electrical output power’ And finally, ‘in DEMO, radio-active waste activity after 100 years, assuming that low/reduced-activation materials are used for the first wall & structure material, could be around 20–50 times more than for ITER. The larger tritium inventory is also significant for tritiated waste management. In fact, this large amount of radioactive waste and especially tritiated waste will result in a large burden for waste disposal sites in the country where DEMO is located’.
There do seem to be some serious issues, and the ITER project has attracted its fair share of criticism. Breakthroughs are always possible, but artificial fusion may not be the way ahead after all! We may have to rely on the (free) fusion reactor we already have- the sun. Maybe a safer option. And a faster one- we have working renewables now: we don’t need to wait for fusion topossibly start dealing with climate change decades hence.
June 4, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
2 WORLD, technology |
Leave a comment
This ‘Doomsday Plane’ Can Survive a Nuclear Attack https://www.livescience.com/65603-doomsday-plane-can-survive-nuclear-attack.htmlm By Yasemin Saplakoglu, Staff Writer | May 31, 2019
The U.S. Air Force’s E-4B, otherwise known as the “doomsday plane” may be able to withstand the force of a nuclear detonation.
This mostly windowless Boeing 747 was designed during the Cold War, and it indeed looks like a blast from the past, according to CNBC’s Amanda Macias who recently got an inside look at the plane.
The craft is equipped with older analog flight instruments, rather than modern digital technology. The analog equipment is less likely to be fried by the electromagnetic pulse released after a nuclear blast, they reported. It also has shielding to protect its crew from nuclear and thermal effects during a nuclear war. [7 Technologies That Transformed Warfare]
With its giant fuel tanks and ability to refuel in the air from other aircraft, the doomsday plane can stay airborne for several days. It holds 67 satellite dishes and antennas, meaning its crew can communicate with anyone, anywhere in the world, even sending messages to the Navy’s ballistic missile submarines, according to DefenseNews.
That being said, most of its capabilities are classified, according to CNBC. The Air Force has four of these E-4B aircraft, each standing at nearly 6 stories tall. Sporting 18 bunks, six bathrooms, a galley and a briefing room among other rooms, each can fly 112 crew members.
Currently, one is being used by Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan to travel to various parts of the world. On Tuesday morning (May 28), he boarded the craft in Maryland en route to Asia for a weeklong trip.
June 1, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
technology, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
|
Lightbridge fuel development gains DOE funding, WNN 30 May 2019, Framatome has received a voucher through the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) programme to support development of Lightbridge Fuel in collaboration with Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
….. Enfission – a joint venture of Lightbridge Corporation and Framatome – was set up in January 2018 to commercialise nuclear fuel assemblies based on this technology. The GAIN initiative was launched in November 2015 to provide a way to fast-track nuclear innovation,…..
This is Framatome’s third GAIN voucher and its first supporting the Lightbridge Fuel design.
Framatome said its collaboration with INL under this GAIN voucher will “leverage the laboratory’s experience in fuel and material development, as well as its performance knowledge, to facilitate Framatome’s understanding of phenomena unique to uranium-zirconium metallic fuel”.
…… For this work DOE will fund INL at a value of USD477,000…… https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Lightbridge-fuel-development-gains-DOE-funding
|
|
June 1, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
business and costs, politics international, technology |
Leave a comment
NASA JUST GOT $125 MILLION TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR ROCKETS, https://futurism.com/the-byte/nasa-develop-nuclear-rockets DAN ROBITZSKI_ 29 May 19, For the first time since the 1970s, NASA is developing nuclear propulsion systems for its spacecraft.NASA didn’t request any money for a nuclear propulsion program, but it will get $125 million for the research as part of the space agency’s
$22.3 billion budget that Congress approved last week,
Space.comreports. If the program succeeds, nuclear propulsion could significantly cut down on travel time during missions to Mars and beyond.
Test Launch
Republican leadership sees nuclear propulsion as an important step along the way to deep space missions and the 2024 Moon landing with which Congress has tasked NASA, per Space.com. Alabama Representative Robert Aderholt described nuclear propulsion as “critical” for the 2024 launch in a budget meeting last week.
“As we continue to push farther into our solar system, we’ll need innovative new propulsion systems to get us there, including nuclear power,” Vice President Mike Pence told the National Space Council in March.
Sorting It Out
But before NASA can embrace nuclear-powered technology, there’s the matter of navigating regulations that govern the use of nuclear energy.
For the time being, the space agency hasn’t announced any plans to use nuclear propulsion for any of its planned missions, according to Space.com, but that may change as the technology develops.
May 30, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
space travel, USA |
Leave a comment
U.S. Department of Energy Further Advances Nuclear Energy Technology through Awards of $10.6 Million , MAY 23, 2019 WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced funding selectees for multiple domestic advanced nuclear technology projects. Three projects in three states will receive varying amounts for a total of approximately $11 million in funding. The projects are cost-shared and will allow industry-led teams, including participants from federal agencies, public and private laboratories, institutions of higher education, and other domestic entities, to advance the state of U.S. commercial nuclear capability.The awards are through the Office of Nuclear Energy’s (NE) funding opportunity announcement (FOA) U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development. This is the fourth round of funding through this FOA. The first group was announced on April 27, the second group was announced on July 10, the third group was announced on November 13, 2018, and the fourth groupwas announced on March 27, 2019. The total of the five rounds of awards is approximately $128 million. Subsequent quarterly application review and selection processes will be conducted over the next four years.
“There are a lot of U.S. companies working on technologies to make the next generation of nuclear reactors safer and highly competitive, and private-public partnerships will be key to accomplishing this goal,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. “The Trump Administration is committed to reviving and revitalizing the U.S. nuclear industry, and these partnerships are needed to help successfully develop innovative domestic nuclear technologies.”
The prior version of the bill would have cost residential customers about $2.50 a month or $300 million a year with the money going mostly to the nuclear plants but also to other resources that do not produce carbon dioxide emissions, like wind and solar.
Democrats on the House committee opposed the removal of the credit for renewable resources and the speed at which the bill was proceeding through the legislature.
The bill could be voted on by the full House as soon as May 29, according to analysts at Height Capital Markets in Washington.
The solicitation is broken into three funding pathways:
- First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) Nuclear Demonstration Readiness Project pathway, intended to address major advanced reactor design development projects or complex technology advancements for existing plants which have significant technical and licensing risk and have the potential to be deployed by the mid-to-late 2020s.
- Advanced Reactor Development Projects pathway, which allows a broad scope of proposed concepts and ideas that are best suited to improving the capabilities and commercialization potential of advanced reactor designs and technologies.
- Regulatory Assistance Grants pathway, which provide direct support for resolving design regulatory issues, regulatory review of licensing topical reports or papers, and other efforts focused on obtaining certification and licensing approvals for advanced reactor designs and capabilities.
The following two projects were selected under the Advanced Reactor Development Projects pathway:…….. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/us-department-energy-further-advances-nuclear-energy-technology-through-awards-106
|
|
|
May 25, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
politics, technology, USA |
Leave a comment
US Air Force nuclear, space programs take hit in border wall reprogramming, Defense News, By: Joe Gould , Aaron Mehta , and Valerie Insinna 13 May 19, WASHINGTON — In the wake of the Pentagon reprogramming $1.5 billion in fiscal 2019 funds to support President Donald Trump’s border wall with Mexico, only the U.S. Air Force appears to be losing money appropriated for equipment updates.
The funding largely comes from personnel accounts in the Air Force, Navy and Army. But the Air Force is the only service to lose funding for hardware, including nuclear and conventional weapons, surveillance aircraft updates, and space programs……..
About half of the non-OCO $818 million sum the Defense Department wants to redirect to the border comes from Air Force accounts, with space and missile programs taking the biggest hit. In total, the Pentagon expects the service to shear $402 million off its FY19 budget.
About $210 million would be cut from Air Force space programs, specifically the Evolved Expandable Launch Vehicle program, which funds the use of rockets that send satellites and other capabilities into space. According to the reprogramming document, one rocket launch has been canceled due to the “Space Test Program (STP)-4 satellite provider termination of the Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS) spacecraft,” which is no longer necessary under the National Security Strategy……
Other Air Force programs that will take a hit include a planned upgrade to the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and the air-launched cruise missile programs.
May 14, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
space travel, USA |
Leave a comment
Beyond Nuclear 12th May 2019 Irene is with a group called CADNO, founded in 1987 and active until the plants closed. The CADNO acronym in Welsh means Society for the Prevention
of Everlasting Nuclear Destruction. It is also the Welsh word for fox.
Now the group is slowly gearing back up, because the Trawsfynydd site is being
talked about as a possible location for a new, small modular reactor (SMR).
CADNO is the fox we actually need to guard this henhouse. The old
Trawsfynydd reactors are decommissioning now, but very slowly. On
Wikipedia, the page proclaims that the decommissioning is expected to take
“almost 100 years.”
The SMR phantom is manifesting itself many places
beyond Trawsfynydd. Being described as “small” and “modular” tends
to mask the reality that it is expensive, of little use for climate change,
and likely still far in the future.
Local politicians, including in Gwynedd, the county in which the Trawsfynydd reactors sit, view the project as an easy jobs handout for a region struggling to employ people. It’s
false hope, of course, because the likelihood of SMRs coming to fruition is
slim and would provide only a handful of jobs.
May 14, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster, UK |
Leave a comment
|
Apocalypse now? Cyber threats and nuclear weapons systems, European Leadership Network Julia Berghofer |Policy Fellow and Project Manager for the YGLN, 10 May 19, It is accepted that all states are vulnerable to cyber threats. Yet, a majority of states have yet to develop coherent cyber strategies or implement sufficient preventive measures. Despite the increase in severe cyber incidents directed at national power plants, companies and nuclear-related military equipment, the threat of cyber interference in national nuclear weapons systems is not being properly tackled. With multinational nuclear supply chains and nuclear command and control systems at risk of being compromised, this must be urgently addressed.
The more complex, the more vulnerable
Governments and legislators are struggling to keep pace with the rapid development of cyber capabilities. As military systems become more technically complex it would be easy to assume that they are more secure. The opposite is true. Increased automation and connectivity increases vulnerabilities to cyber attacks. Measures such as air-gapping a system (ie. de-connecting it from the internet) can fall short. A recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report assessed the cyber security of US weapons systems and found “mission critical cyber vulnerabilities in nearly all weapons systems […] under development.“ While the report does not make reference to any specific system type, one can reasonably assume that nuclear weapons systems are vulnerable to cyber attacks.
 Possible kinds of cyber attacks
Cyber attacks can take many forms. Activities range from cyber espionage, data theft, infiltration of nuclear command, control and communications (NC3), denial of service/distributed denial of service (DoS/DDoS) attacks, false alarms (jamming and spoofing), sabotage and physical damage. When directed against nuclear weapons systems, in the worst possible case this may escalate to a deliberate or inadvertent exchange of nuclear weapons.
Another area of concern is the supply chain, comprised of any hardware and software components belonging to the nuclear weapons system, including NC3, platforms, delivery systems and warheads. The supply chain usually includes a string of companies and providers located in different countries with varying cyber security standards, which means there is room for manipulation and sabotage. Take, for instance, a computer chip produced in country A. If a vulnerability were inserted at the production stage it could then be remotely activated at a later point when the chip is integrated into the military system of country B. If the attacker happened to be an “insider“ with unlimited access to a military site, compromising military equipment could be easier. This could be done for instance through an infected USB drive when security standards in a military facility happen to be low, leaving the victim of the attack unaware of the manipulation up until it is too late.
Limited awareness of cyber risks to nuclear systems
There is a lack of awareness within the expert community and among decision-makers and a reluctance by states to implement measures such as common cyber security standards and the sharing of information on vulnerabilities. Among the nuclear weapons states, only in the United States have high-ranking officials, such as Gen. Robert Kehler (ret.) and Air Force Gen. John Hyten (STRATCOM), in two Senate Armed Service Committee hearings in 2013 and 2017 expressed their concerns about a potential cyber attack affecting the U.S. nuclear deterrent. One reason why decision-makers and governments are unwilling to take these steps could be that it seems too unrealistic or improbable a threat, merely belonging to the worlds of science fiction and doomsday scenarios. But there is no reason to assume that the warnings of the GAO, the U.S. 2017 Task Force on Cyber Deterrence or the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) are exaggerated.
Certainly, there has not yet been a major cyber attack on a state-run nuclear weapons programme – at least none we have publicly heard of. But there are a string of examples of cyber interference in nuclear installations or parts of the  supply chain related to them. These include: the Stuxnet attack in 2010 affecting over 15 Iranian nuclear facilities which slowed down the development of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme; a massive cyber attack on Lockheed Martin in 2009 during which thousands of confidential files on the U.S. F35 Lightning II fighter aircraft were compromised by hackers (they were also able to see information such as the location of military aircraft in flight); the 2017 hacking of the THAAD missile defence system in South Korea; the 2009 Conficker Worm attack on the French Marine Nationale; a 2011 cyber espionage campaign on the French nuclear company Areva; and deep worries over the WannaCry virus possibly targeting parts of the UK Trident system in 2017.
What should decision-makers and policy-makers do?
|
|
May 11, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
2 WORLD, safety, secrets,lies and civil liberties, technology, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
From the A bomb to the AI bomb, nuclear weapons’ problematic evolution, more https://www.france24.com/en/20190510-nuclear-weapons-artificial-intelligence-ai-missiles-bombs-technology-military, France 24 LIVE, Sébastian SEIBTm 10 May 19
From autonomous nuclear submarines to algorithms detecting a threat, to robot-guided high-speed missiles, artificial intelligence could revolutionise nuclear weapons – risking some profound ethical conundrums – a recent report reveals.
At 2:26 A.M. on June 3, 1980, Zbigniew Brezezinski, US President Jimmy Carter’s famously hawkish national security adviser, received a terrifying phone call: 220 Soviet nuclear missiles were heading for the US. A few minutes later, another phone call offered new information: in reality, 2,220 missiles were flying towards the US.
Eventually, as Brezezinski was about to warn Carter of the impending doom, military officials realised that it was a gargantuan false alarm caused by a malfunctioning automated warning system. Thus, the Cold War nearly became an apocalypse because of a computer component not working properly.
This was long before artificial intelligence (AI) rose to prominence. But the Americans and Soviets had already begun to introduce algorithms into their control rooms in order to make their nuclear deterrence more effective. However, several incidents – most notably that of June 3, 1980 – show the disadvantages of using AI.
Novelty implies new vulnerabilities’
Almost forty years on from that near debacle, AI seems to have disappeared from the nuclear debate, even though such algorithms have become ubiquitous at every level of society. But a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published on May 6 underlines the importance of this aspect.
The nuclear arms race still poses a considerable threat, seeing as Donald Trump’s America has promised to modernise its arsenal, North Korea seems uninterested in abandoning its nuclear programme, and relations are tense between neighbouring nuclear powers and historical antagonists India and Pakistan.
However, technological breakthroughs in AI show “enormous potential in nuclear power, as in the areas of conventional and cyber weapons”, said Vincent Boulanin, the researcher at SIPRI responsible for the report, in an interview with FRANCE 24. In particular, machine learning is “excellent for data analysis”, Boulanin continued. Such work could play an essential role in intelligence gathering and the detection of cyber attacks.
Russia resurrects Soviet AI system
“In truth, we know very little about the use of AI in nuclear weapons systems at present,” Boulanin admitted. Russia is the only world power to have brought up the issue recently, with President Vladimir Putin announcing in March 2018 the construction of a fully automated nuclear submarine called Poseidon. Furthermore, in 2011 Moscow resurrected and updated the Perimetr system, which uses artificial intelligence to be able (under certain conditions) to detect an atomic bomb by another state. But experts consider these announcements to be lacking in concrete details.
In part, such scepticism stems from the fact that “the adoption of new technologies in the nuclear field tends to be rather slow because novelty implies the possibility of new vulnerabilities”, Boulanin pointed out. Those in control of nuclear weapons programmes prefer to work on outdated computers instead of state-of-the-art technologies that are at risk of being hacked.
Nevertheless, Bounanin continued, it’s only a matter of time before the nuclear powers adopt AI in their weapons systems, considering the enticing prospects of such technology. Its main advantage is that algorithms are an awful lot faster than humans at processing information.
AI could also make guidance systems for missiles more accurate and more flexible, according to Boulanin. “This would be especially useful for high velocity systems that human can’t manoeuvre,” he said. Indeed, several countries are working on prototypes of hypersonic aircraft and missiles able to fly five times faster than the speed of sound. It would be impossible for humans to intervene on the trajectory of such missiles, while AI could correct the aim if necessary.
The dark side of AI in nuclear weapons
There is, however, a very dark side to AI. By nature, it implies the delegation of decision-making from humans to machines – which would carry serious “moral and ethical” implications, noted Page Stoutland, vice-president of the American NGO Nuclear Threat Initiative, which collaborated in the SIPRI report.
On this basis, “the guiding principle of respect for human dignity dictates that machines should generally not be making life-or-death decisions”, argued Frank Sauer, a nuclear weapons specialist at the University of Munich, in the SIRI study. “Countries need to take a clear stance on this” so that they don’t have robotic hands on the red button.
That’s while algorithms are created by humans and, as such, can reinforce the prejudices of their creators. In the US, AI used by the police to prevent reoffending has been shown to be “racist” by several studies. “It is therefore impossible to exclude a risk of inadvertent escalation or at least of instability if the algorithm misinterprets and misrepresents the reality of the situation,” pointed out Jean-Marc Rickli, a researcher at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, in the SIRI report.
Risk of accidental use
Artificial intelligence also risks upsetting the delicate balance between the nuclear powers, warned Michael Horowitz, a defence specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, in the SIRI study: “An insecure nuclear-armed state would therefore be more likely to automate nuclear early-warning systems, use unmanned nuclear delivery platforms or, due to fear of rapidly losing a conventional war, adopt nuclear launch postures that are more likely to lead to accidental nuclear use or deliberate escalation.” That means that the US – which boasts the world’s largest nuclear stockpile – will be more cautious in adopting AI than a minor nuclear power such as Pakistan.
In short, artificial intelligence is a double-edged sword when applied to nuclear weapons. In certain respects, it could help to make the world safer. But it needs to be adopted “in a responsible way, and people needs to take time to identify the risks associated with AI, as well as pre-emptively solving its problems”, Boulanin concluded.
One sobering comparison might be with the financial services industry. Bankers used the same arguments – the promises of speed and reliability – to introduce AI to the sector as those used by its advocates in the nuclear weapons field. Yet the use of AI in trading rooms has led to some very unpleasant stock market crashes. And of course, nuclear weapons will give AI much more to play with than mere money.
May 11, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
2 WORLD, technology, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Jim Green.Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/– 9 May 19
Another nail in the coffin of the ‘integral fast reactors’
championed by Ben Heard, Barry Brook et al.
UK consideration as to how to manage a growing stockpile of separated plutonium: “Re-use in PRISM [IFR] fast reactors – an option proposed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) involving the construction at Sellafield of a fuel fabrication plant and two PRISM reactors (all ‘first of a kind’ facilities) to irradiate a plutonium alloy fuel. The option was put forward by GEH as ‘ready to deploy’ and therefore capable of quickly dispositioning the complete plutonium stockpile.‘ However, the studies undertaken by NDA with GEH over the past few years have shown that a major research and development programme would be required, indicating a low level of technical maturity for the option with no guarantee of success.
At this time, it is noted that the cost, scope and extent of work required to progress Fast Reactor options, such as the GEH PRISM, as well as the timeframe for these options to become available, means it is not credible for the NDA to develop these options, or have them available for implementation within the next 20 years. Therefore no further work with GEH has been funded by NDA’.”
May 9, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
technology, UK |
Leave a comment
NuScale Gains Potential Financial Backing for Worldwide SMR Deployment, Power , 05/01/2019 | Sonal Patel NuScale Power, the front-runner in the race to commercialize small modular reactors (SMRs), has bagged another major backer that could broaden its nuclear supply chain base and expand its financial standing.
On April 29, NuScale signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction (DHIC), a South Korean–based engineering, procurement, and construction contractor with a wide global network, that supports deployment of NuScale’s Power Module worldwide. “The relationship includes DHIC, a member of the Doosan Group, and potential Korean financial investors, which, commensurate to final due diligence, plan to make a cash equity investment in NuScale,” NuScale said on Monday. …..
That project, which is to be built at a 890-square-mile site at the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, will feature a plant comprising a dozen 60-MWe modules. NuScale anticipates the first module could be operational by 2026 and full plant would be operational by 2027.
However, NuScale’s design certification application, which it submitted to the the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in December 2016 covers 50-MWe modules. The company increased the module’s capacity to 60-MWe in June 2018, citing optimization through advanced testing and modeling tools. The breakthrough would boost the power capacity of the 12-module UAMPs facility from 600 MWe to 720 MWe, it said. ….
According to NuScale, the first 12-module facility, even at 684 MWe (net), could cost up to $3 billion to build. ……https://www.powermag.com/nuscale-gains-potential-financial-backing-for-worldwide-smr-deployment/
May 2, 2019
Posted by Christina MacPherson |
technology, USA |
Leave a comment
